Share via

David Cameron played down the possibility of military intervention in Syria
today despite acknowledging that the latest evidence suggested that the
Assad regime had crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons against its
own people.

As The Times reported from the scene of a nerve
gas attack on the city of Aleppo, the Prime Minister said that there was
“growing evidence” of chemical weapons use by Syrian government forces.

But he was notably more cautious that in previous statements on the crisis,
backing President Obama’s call for further investigations to verify the
claims coming out of Syria.

The White

Subscribe now

Login

Already a subscriber?

To see the full article you need to subscribe

Subscribe

Login

Neutralising the Assad regime’s stocks of chemical weapons may turn out be the key strategic moment in President Obama’s career as US Commander-in-Chief.

To many in the Middle East, the price of US non-action is now higher than the undoubted risks of intervention. There were good reasons for the initial caution of the US, and its apparent reluctance to back the reports earlier this week from Israeli military intelligence of chemical weapon use.

President Obama’s early years as US leader were overshadowed by the inability of his predecessor to find Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. The political manipulation of raw intelligence has in the words of one analyst "hogtied" the President and made him appear indecisive and risk-averse. And secondly, there has been the powerful opposition of Russia to any kind of action in Syria.

But the strategic calculations have shifted quickly. The President is presenting himself as a Middle East peace broker but will lose all credibility if he fails to provide security to Israel against its neighbours.

Last year President Obama warned Syria that the use of chemical weapons was a "red line". Last month in Jerusalem he said it would be a "game-changer". Now the game has changed.

US military intervention can be plausibly argued on humanitarian grounds: the horror of toxic chemicals used in Syrian townships may be enough to secure United Nations Security Council support for limited intervention. But a coalition of the willing may feel that there is reason enough now to act without it anyway.

One of the key differences between Israel and the US on how to act in Syria has been the relative importance attached to jihadists. Israel has argued all along that the problem may not be the use of chemical weapons by a desperate Assad regime but rather a rapid dissolution of authority that allows Hezbollah or jihadists access to the armoury. Israel would then rapidly become a target.

Now the US — sensitised by the Boston bombers to the menace of jihadism on its own territory — is in broad agreement with Israel. It doesn’t matter who uses chemical weapons, their mere activation has let an evil genie out of the bottle.